Interesting Analysis of Iowa NFL Draft Success v Recruiting Rankings

[hawkincal]

Anyone who is a hawk fan and actually has any semblance of objectivity finds this info to be completely obvious. Kirk Ferentz is a fantastic teacher and a poor gameday coach. I've said this for years. Hopefully the change in staff changes this, but I find it hard to believe that he will let the reigns go as much as he needs to for this program to take the next step forward.

While depth has been an issue for Iowa, the Iowa staff under Kirk Ferentz has been below average on game day coaching for years. Once teams figured out Kirk's system, Kirk failed to make adjustments, and his team became very easy to coach against. Game day coaching at the highest level of college football (and definitely the NFL) is about making adjustments, an areas of weakness for Kirk.

Hopefully the staff changes will make a difference going forward (though I'm not sure about Phil Parker). Besides Greg Davis, I actually think having Brian Ferentz may actually help shake things up, since he has more recently been with Bill Belechek (the best at making in-game adjustments), and may be able to speak up more to tell Kirk that adjustments need to be made (Kirk more likely to listen to his son than say Lester Erb).

 

[MisterLucky]

Yeah, Iowa does get a good number of players drafted...HOWEVER, the majority of them get drafted in rounds 4-7. Alabama, meanwhile, will see the majority of their players go in the first couple rounds. That is a HUGE difference. Do not try and compare Iowa to schools like Alabama because we have similar draft numbers.

Adam Gettis and Jordan Bernstine were drafted in late rounds. Neither one had overly impressive college careers. Basically, a roster full of these types of players should not raise everyone's expected win totals.

You make a good point, but there are a lot of those late round picks that make pro rosters and some of them actually wind up starting. I doubt that any "second tier" program has more pro players than Iowa.

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

no one will doubt your douchiness. no one.

Hahahaha are you KF?

 

[NorthFlorida]

Ferentz 3.0 is all about realizing that no one gives a **** about how many NFL players you create out of nothing unless those players create championships.

Except if your a player with the dream of making it to the NFL.

 

[MoseSchrute]

While depth has been an issue for Iowa, the Iowa staff under Kirk Ferentz has been below average on game day coaching for years. Once teams figured out Kirk's system, Kirk failed to make adjustments, and his team became very easy to coach against. Game day coaching at the highest level of college football (and definitely the NFL) is about making adjustments, an areas of weakness for Kirk.

Hopefully the staff changes will make a difference going forward (though I'm not sure about Phil Parker). Besides Greg Davis, I actually think having Brian Ferentz may actually help shake things up, since he has more recently been with Bill Belechek (the best at making in-game adjustments), and may be able to speak up more to tell Kirk that adjustments need to be made (Kirk more likely to listen to his son than say Lester Erb).

I'm less worried about Phil than I am about the offense. Phil has been a large part of some pretty good Iowa defenses, so I think he's got a good grasp on what needs to be done. I like Davis, but I'm not sure how much freedom Kirk will give him. Also, like he said, we need more of those type of guys that he easily got at Texas.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Alot of good points in this thread, but one thing I haven't seen mentioned yet last year's article about Iowa's record since 2004, being VERY POOR as 10+ point favorites. I can't recall the exact record now, but Iowa had FAR more losses than any other team in the Big Ten when a 10+ point favorite. I believe it equated to something like an average of 2 losses per year when favorite by 10 or more points.

If you take care of the games you are "supposed" to win, that stat right there is enough to turn 7-5 records into 9-3.

Iowa, for whatever reason, plays to the level of its competition. It can look great against a team like Michigan St. and then completely lay an egg against a Minnesota team who goes 2-10 (with one of those W's against Iowa).

 

[clicheusername3]

Shutdown corners.

 

[JHHawk]

I think you have a combo of factors that contribute to the head-scratching losses in recent years.
Last year, we were thin at d-line,then Daniels,Nardo and Alvis,the three best along with Binns, got hurt.
The year before,we were thin at LB,and we lost our top five lbers.
In 2009,we were undefeated,and our star QB was lost for the year to injury.
In 2008, we lost 4 games by a total of 12 points,which brings us to the coaching conservatism arguement. We play close to the vest but that keeps inferior teams close also,an we get burned.
In 2007, we just kind of stunk.
In 2006, Drew Tate our star QB got hurt.
In 2005, we were a couple of chipshot fgs away from winning the Big Ten.

As for betting..KF's conservative style does not wear well against the spread against inferior opponents. When Iowa is an underdog,they do well.

 

[azhawkphan]

This is really not in defense of KF as he has made some ,um, conservative in game decisions and it is his and his staff's job to get the backups ready to play, but I think that while Iowa has as good of top 28-30 players as anyone most years, Iowa lacks quality depth at some positions and we don't have another 4/5* stud that are physically ready to play to plug in like other teams that send players to the draft as regularly as we do.My $.02... take it or leave it.

I agree with the depth aspect...Iowa has an undeniable track record of turning middle of the pack recruits into NFL draftees. But when those guys go down, the harsh realities Iowa faces in recruiting come to bear...every diamond in the rough will not turn out to be a valuable diamond.

Injuries and continued attrition issues have caused this football program to miss expectations the last couple of years. Or at least is a major part of missing expectations. Some years Iowa FB has overcome injuries, but the key here is timing. Injuries at the beginning or near the end of the season have been overcome. But recently some positions have been totally decimated by injuries and compounded by attrition. Iowa is not going to overcome this. Mostly due to style of play and recruiting. When you have Tom Donatell playing OLB for extended periods of time, something has gone horibally wrong. (Note: not a slight to Tom, not his natural position and he gave it his all).

 

[SpiderRico]

Just a few random thoughts related to this topic.....

1. I hear excuses from "tradition", to "recruiting", to "population", to "money" to explain why Iowa hasn't gotten up with the big boys. But I don't think that flies anymore. Over the last 30 years combined, we are in the Top 25 in winning % among BCS level schools. We have put more players into the NFL than all but a handful of teams. Our athletic department revenue is Top 15 in the country right now. So if it's not tradition, players or money....what is it?

2. I've heard excuses that we don't have the skill position talent year in and year out to make it to the next level. But isn't football won and lost in the trenches? We have consistently sent O-linemen and D-linemen to the league in droves. So if football is won in the trenches and we've had outstanding "trenches players", what is keeping us from the upper echelon?

3. Over the last 10 years, when compared to our "peers" in the conference (Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Penn State and Wisconsin), we have the highest winning % against teams that finished the year with 8 or more wins. However, we have the second lowest winning % (next to MSU) by a WIDE margin, against teams that finished the year with between 4 and 7 wins. If we have the players (NFL picks) and the financial acumen (Top 15 AD), why can't we consistently win against average/below average teams?

4. I've heard the excuse that we don't have quality "depth"....that when a player goes down we can't fill it with a player close to the caliber of the one that went down. But isn't a coach's job, especially one that is paid A LOT of money, to come up with ways to minimize the loss? For example, why should Adam Robinson going down bring our entire offense to a screeching halt? Did we not have a top flight QB (3rd round pick)? Did we not have the best receivers in Iowa history on either side of him? Or when an offensive lineman went down (can't think of his name off the top of my head), do we not have quality fullbacks to help with blitz pickup? Do we not have quality running backs to do the same? Do we not have another side of the line to run to? We're a top level Big 10 team (3rd best record over the last 10, 20 and 30 years).....why wouldn't we be able to do that?

Bottom line is that KF brings a TON to the table.....player identification and development, NFL ties, leadership, ability to rally donors and alumn....from Sunday thru Friday, he's probably the best coach in America. But Saturdays often leave something to be desired. My hope is that he's finally recognizing that and will allow his lieutenants more freedom and ability to overcome some of those weaknesses. I look forward to finding out.

 

[okeefe4prez]

2. I've heard excuses that we don't have the skill position talent year in and year out to make it to the next level. But isn't football won and lost in the trenches? We have consistently sent O-linemen and D-linemen to the league in droves. So if football is won in the trenches and we've had outstanding "trenches players", what is keeping us from the upper echelon?

A big component is luck. We have yet to have all the chips fall into place in the same year - ought nine was close, but no cigar, and prolly the closest we will ever see in many of our lifetimes.

With respect to your question, I must ask you if you recall two games in particular. Orange Bowl 2003 versus USC? Early '90's I think it was when we played Miami? Those were teams with good QBs and good players outside. They absolutely mauled us, very good teams of ours at that.

Seriously, we just are not going to get those guys into IC without a very long sustained run of success (and even then it is questionable as Nebraska is not pulling guys who can compete nationally anymore) or cheating. It is just not going to happen. We have to identify and then develop them. Not every identification project is successful. Not every development project is successful.

 

[ddiction]

If you're good at developing players, that implies that many of those players start out being not that great before they become NFL prospects. Kirk thus has to deal with a roster full of players at varying degrees of development, which means depth is usually a question mark, and that's before factoring in AIRBHG.

 

[RocknRollface]

azhawkphan nailed it. The only addition I would suggest is that if you look at the specific positions for Iowa's drafted players, you may want to consider that some spots have more impact on wins/losses than others. I.E., QB's, wide receivers who are game breakers, big time running backs, dominating defensive linemen. Iowa has not had a lot of players in these categories over the years. But, the depth issue is certainly the major factor, imho.

First of all Iowa has had plenty of dominating D lineman. Pretty much every starter from 01 - 10 was drafted or at least played in the NFL, thats better than nearly every team Iowa plays other than OSU. Even the ones that didn't play in the league, Hodges and Lubke, were excellent players.

Second, cumulative Oline starts have a strong statistical link to wins. I believe this was shown by Jon a couple season ago.

Iowas overall conservative strategy has lead to too many close games with inferior teams. The lack of blitzing made it way to easy on teams with inferior talent and it kept Iowas D on the field way to long even though they eventually ended up getting stops.

Iowas slow conservative approach on O coincided with the conservative strategy on D partly out of the necessity to give the defense a rest.

Trying to "out fundamental" your opponent, rather than creating and exploiting mismatches likely makes for better individual players but often worse overall results.

 

[RocknRollface]

Yeah, Iowa does get a good number of players drafted...HOWEVER, the majority of them get drafted in rounds 4-7. Alabama, meanwhile, will see the majority of their players go in the first couple rounds. That is a HUGE difference. Do not try and compare Iowa to schools like Alabama because we have similar draft numbers.

Adam Gettis and Jordan Bernstine were drafted in late rounds. Neither one had overly impressive college careers. Basically, a roster full of these types of players should not raise everyone's expected win totals.

No one is comparing Iowa to Alabama in results, we are comparing them to ISU, Minnesota Purdue and NW.

I think everyone's gripe is Iowa losing to these type of teams. Consistently. The author makes a solid point, Ron Zook is pretty much the only other coach who has been comparable in that regard.

Ferentz teams have often had to have tremendous talent just to produce good results.

 

[okeefe4prez]

No one is comparing Iowa to Alabama in results, we are comparing them to ISU, Minnesota Purdue and NW.

I think everyone's gripe is Iowa losing to these type of teams. Consistently. The author makes a solid point, Ron Zook is pretty much the only other coach who has been comparable in that regard.

Ferentz teams have often had to have tremendous talent just to produce good results.

NU.

Posted from my new iPad

 

[RocknRollface]

I think you have a combo of factors that contribute to the head-scratching losses in recent years.
Last year, we were thin at d-line,then Daniels,Nardo and Alvis,the three best along with Binns, got hurt.
The year before,we were thin at LB,and we lost our top five lbers.
In 2009,we were undefeated,and our star QB was lost for the year to injury.
In 2008, we lost 4 games by a total of 12 points,which brings us to the coaching conservatism arguement. We play close to the vest but that keeps inferior teams close also,an we get burned.
In 2007, we just kind of stunk.
In 2006, Drew Tate our star QB got hurt.
In 2005, we were a couple of chipshot fgs away from winning the Big Ten.

As for betting..KF's conservative style does not wear well against the spread against inferior opponents. When Iowa is an underdog,they do well.

On the flip side you come back to how close Iowa was to losing a bunch of games in 2009 to crap teams.


I won't count NW against them because of how lucky NW got to score a defensive TD and knock out the QB all on one play. But against UNI and Indiana there were no injuries and Iowa had an enormousness advantage at all most every position and yet both should have been losses if not for two totally fluke plays.

You shouldn't of needed half the talent Iowa had to kill teams like that.

 

[RocknRollface]

Just a few random thoughts related to this topic.....


3. Over the last 10 years, when compared to our "peers" in the conference (Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Penn State and Wisconsin), we have the highest winning % against teams that finished the year with 8 or more wins. However, we have the second lowest winning % (next to MSU) by a WIDE margin, against teams that finished the year with between 4 and 7 wins. If we have the players (NFL picks) and the financial acumen (Top 15 AD), why can't we consistently win against average/below average teams?

You nailed it with this stat. If Iowa can do so well against good teams there is no excuse at all to have done so poorly against bad teams.

No one else among these peers has any trouble at all beating NW and Indiana consistently, well other than Nebraska.

 

[RocknRollface]

NU.

Posted from my new iPad

nw

 

[SmokeTownHawk]

Alot of good points in this thread, but one thing I haven't seen mentioned yet last year's article about Iowa's record since 2004, being VERY POOR as 10+ point favorites. I can't recall the exact record now, but Iowa had FAR more losses than any other team in the Big Ten when a 10+ point favorite. I believe it equated to something like an average of 2 losses per year when favorite by 10 or more points.

If you take care of the games you are "supposed" to win, that stat right there is enough to turn 7-5 records into 9-3.

Iowa, for whatever reason, plays to the level of its competition. It can look great against a team like Michigan St. and then completely lay an egg against a Minnesota team who goes 2-10 (with one of those W's against Iowa).

And this more than anything else is what needs to change. If you're favored like this you need to consistently win these games.

 

[MoseSchrute]

No one else among these peers has any trouble at all beating NW and Indiana consistently, well other than Nebraska.

One year is not a trend.