tm3308
Well-Known Member
Execution is essentially the answer. But, and this has been my general point for awhile now: we don't adjust when the players we have out there simply aren't able to execute to a satisfactory degree.
Iowa Football: Is it Execution or Philosophy
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
Execution is essentially the answer. But, and this has been my general point for awhile now: we don't adjust when the players we have out there simply aren't able to execute to a satisfactory degree.
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
34% of third down conversions over the final four games isn't just not executing at well beneath a high level...that's 2007-ish stuff...very poor. It needs to be above 40%. That's an acceptable level for the team concept Iowa employs. They didn't reach that.
Well I can't speak about the Terrell Pryor incident... but I can tell you that I called out the fake punt before the snap.
So maybe if I was coaching for that play it would not have worked.
Not saying I could coach this team or anything like that, but I do believe that when people sitting at home on their couches can see a play coming in a situation like that... The coaches that are getting paid money to make the right calls should sure as hell be at least thinking about it and playing it safely. There was no need to even return that punt. Whether we returned the punt for 30 yards or called a fair catch or simply let it bounce and take it where it lands... It would have most likely sealed the deal.
I can't defend the coaches on that play at all. I don't see how anyone could. It was a big mistake that cost us the game. A play that was preventable. I'm not saying every loss is on the coaches... but that one was.
HawKCP
Well-Known Member
There is a large contingent that has never understood the philosophies of this football team and therefore assumes that those philosophies are ineffective. They hold their tongues in the good times...and relish in calling for firings and saying "See I told you so" during the bad times.
The last third of the season proved that the team could not execute well enough to win - whether the reason is injuries or something else doesn't matter. It's the coaches job to adjust to the personnel available. History has shown that the staff is unable or unwilling to change under these circumstances.
This seasons failures lie mostly with the coaches.
This seasons failures lie mostly with the coaches.
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
I guess I don't see having a fourth quarter lead in each of your last four games being a coaching failure. Including a lead against a team that is going to finish in the Top five or six or the regular season BCS standings.
I am not saying the coaching staff is without blame this year; I already stated that above.
But I think far too much blame is going their way, based on the reactions I have read in the past 24 hours. All of the sudden, a lot of people have forgotten the successes these philosophies, when executed, have brought in recent years and the past decade
I'm just stating that people have been complaining about KOK before the second half of this season. I don't know about the people you associate with but I can recall reading comments on these very boards that complained about the play calling.
I'm not saying I was one of them, but I saw it. Just stating a fact.
If you have ever been a part of a team...... on any level..... but particularly at a high level.....
Things go on during a season that effects the way a team practices....prepares....plays.
relationships with each other as players.... maybe there is some selfishness brewing with some guys..... maybe within the team some of the players do question playcalling.
These are the factors that I think contribute more...... and affect a teams toughness...... and affects a teams attitude....... that is going to be totally overlooked.
Something happened with this team emotionally and attitude wise that lies deeper than execution. Deeper than lining up, calling the play, and getting the job done or not.
Obviously it's speculation.... If I was a betting man...... I would say it had more to do with these types of things than philosophy or execution. Just isn't even that simple IMO.
Things go on during a season that effects the way a team practices....prepares....plays.
relationships with each other as players.... maybe there is some selfishness brewing with some guys..... maybe within the team some of the players do question playcalling.
These are the factors that I think contribute more...... and affect a teams toughness...... and affects a teams attitude....... that is going to be totally overlooked.
Something happened with this team emotionally and attitude wise that lies deeper than execution. Deeper than lining up, calling the play, and getting the job done or not.
Obviously it's speculation.... If I was a betting man...... I would say it had more to do with these types of things than philosophy or execution. Just isn't even that simple IMO.
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
People complain about play calling in every college football game every played, and all the more now that we are OC's in our basements on PS3 and XBox
I have presided over 100 Iowa football post game call in shows, 1000+ daily sports radio shows, and 11 years worth of message board moderation, close to a billion page views to this website. It doesn't matter how much Iowa wins by, there will be a few calls or posts that focus solely on something they perceive to be as a negative.
Last edited:
HawksFlyHigh
Well-Known Member
Execution is the name of the game. For players AND coaches.
We are in a position to win games because that is the philosophy. Keep it close to the vest, and give yourself a chance to win.
But one of the most glaring stats I have ever seen regarding Iowa and Kirk Ferentz is our win-loss record in close games. It is a large enough sample to size to draw a conclusion.
Ferentz is 7-25 all time in games decided by 5 points or less.
And THAT is a direct correlation to philosophy. And it is a flawed one. When your philsoophy is predicated on the other team making a mistake, rather than forcing the issue and making a play, you're playing not to lose rather than to win.
Last edited:
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
Excellent post. I might not agree with you entirely, but this is the sort of dialogue that I enjoy.
HawksFlyHigh
Well-Known Member
One thought that just came to me while reading this.
Ferentz always lays blame at the feet of the players via execution.
Is he really that stubborn to think that himself and the coaching staff can't improve their execution? Is it really all the players faults?
No.
Execution is the name of the game, but I think Ferentz lost the team this year with his approach and overall philosophy.
Ferentz always lays blame at the feet of the players via execution.
Is he really that stubborn to think that himself and the coaching staff can't improve their execution? Is it really all the players faults?
No.
Execution is the name of the game, but I think Ferentz lost the team this year with his approach and overall philosophy.
Jon, you mention how poorly they performed in the last 3rd of the year and I believe we are in agreement the injuries were a factor. If your best player in whatever position is injured you will not execute at the same level. My frustration is that the coaches do not adapt to the weaknesses that are created because of injuries. If you are not going to have as much time to throw a pass go into shotgun instead of under center flank 4 or 5 recievers and throw quick routes.
DBAHawkFan
Well-Known Member
I think it's more the way we lost. Every game we knew it was going to come down to the 4th Q and the defense making a stop, or the offense making a play to run out the clock or put the team away.
On the offense, it's a bit disapointing that a 3 year starting QB, talented WRs, could not make a first down to extend a series. Why did the offense go backwards? Because we lost our 1st and 2nd string Guards???? Seems kind of odd.
yet this happened in every loss, and every game minus IN where Stanzi hit McNutt for a long gain and the winning score.
On defense, we continued to play base on obvious passing downs with a LB corps that couldn't cover anyone. Expecting Morris to cover some of the better WR on the opposing team is asking too much, and as hard as Troy Johnson tries, he is another one who is lost on the field.
Yet knowing these situations were on the horizon, no adjustments were made. It's a losing mentality to let other teams do what they want to against us. You know, had Iowa brought in a nickleback, or tried to put more pressure by bringing a blitz, or disguising some different schemes, and we still got scored on....oh well, the other team made the play.
I'm sure there would be posters who would then say "WHY DIDN'T WE STAY IN OUR 4-3 BASE!!!????", but i think most rational fans would accept that the coaches adjusted their scheme for the situation, and the team got beat.
That's what i want to see change next year. A ability for both the offense and the defense to make on the fly adjustments. If Coker is gashing the defense, we get a first down, i don't want to see a 30 yard post pattern thrown incomplete, forcing us to either pass the next two downs, or have the defense load up in the box and shut down any run play.
And on Defense if our DL is struggling to get some pressure, mix up the coverages and show different looks.
That's all really, at least IMO. Just show some thinking and agressiveness, rather than always reacting and praying for a lucky bounce.
HawksFlyHigh
Well-Known Member
Thanks I appreciated that coming from you Jon.
Patrick Webb had a good reply last night referring to how Iowa hasn't game planned anything based on other teams success..case in point Penn St. (I believe) looping an outside linebacker around the backside of Pryor and stunting from the other side ( I'm probably screwing up his example here )..Penn St had success doing that I think his point was but we didn't learn anything from prior teams..I just hate the fact that we are/were on the corner to big time legitimacy as a program and could have been looking at great recruiting classes..maybe we still are but this has to be a step back..
Does anyone else think that the KF philosophy borderlines on arrogance? Like, it doesn't matter who we play, if we execute, good things will happen? I know it works well when you have the personnel, but when you don't, don't you need to modify some things? Like in 04 when we had to?
One thing that is obvious to me, watching the KF era, is that the staff does not make very good in-game or mid-season adjustments. If our kickoff coverage is bad the first game of the year, it will be bad all year for instance. While that to me does not signify a philosophy problem, it indicates a management/organizational problem. While you can be staunch on your philosophy, of being a play-action team, a zone defense team, etc., or be a zone-based defense, or even how you want the games to be played, you must always have the ability to tweak the execution of your philosophy quickly.
I don't know much about the organization of a football team, but I do know the organization of business and of race teams. The successful ones are the ones that have the organization in place to modify the game-plan quickly and concisely and make changes accordingly.
So, this can be to:
1. The entire staff is just slow at identifying problems.
2. There is not a protocol when a problem is identified, for example, where do you go when you see a change needs to be made.
3. One person, the HC, is completely autonomous and the other coordinators are merely puppets of his system, and does not give the authority to either coordinators or players to make changes or suggestions.
4. There is very little plan b, or plan c's.
Those are just a few of the issues. I would think #3 is a lot of went on at the end of the year, making our 18-22 year olds quit and get theres.
One thing that is obvious to me, watching the KF era, is that the staff does not make very good in-game or mid-season adjustments. If our kickoff coverage is bad the first game of the year, it will be bad all year for instance. While that to me does not signify a philosophy problem, it indicates a management/organizational problem. While you can be staunch on your philosophy, of being a play-action team, a zone defense team, etc., or be a zone-based defense, or even how you want the games to be played, you must always have the ability to tweak the execution of your philosophy quickly.
I don't know much about the organization of a football team, but I do know the organization of business and of race teams. The successful ones are the ones that have the organization in place to modify the game-plan quickly and concisely and make changes accordingly.
So, this can be to:
1. The entire staff is just slow at identifying problems.
2. There is not a protocol when a problem is identified, for example, where do you go when you see a change needs to be made.
3. One person, the HC, is completely autonomous and the other coordinators are merely puppets of his system, and does not give the authority to either coordinators or players to make changes or suggestions.
4. There is very little plan b, or plan c's.
Those are just a few of the issues. I would think #3 is a lot of went on at the end of the year, making our 18-22 year olds quit and get theres.
PJHawk
Well-Known Member
Speaking of flaws, your post is based on a flawed premise.
http://www.hawkeyenation.com/forum/...ss-last-year-only-good-year-close-game-2.html
Here are the real numbers thanks to the research last week of a poster name ChosenChildren:
5 pt or less 7 pt or less
1999 0-2 0-4
2000 2-1 2-3
2001 0-2 2-4
2002 2-1 3-1
2003 1-0 2-0
2004 4-0 5-0
2005 0-2 0-3
2006 0-3 1-3
2007 2-2 3-2
2008 2-4 2-4
2009 4-1 4-2
2010 1-4 1-4
Overall, in games decided by 7 pts or less, Ferentz is 25-30. In games decided by 5 pts or less, he is 18-22.
Since 2005, he is 11-18 and 9-16, respectively.
His career record of 25-30 in games of 7 pts or less is ok, but not great.
Since 2005 he is 11-18, which I would say is a poor record.
Last edited:
HawksFlyHigh
Well-Known Member
You make very good points, but number 3 is just way, way off base. That is just not reality. All the assistants have authority to suggest changes to Ferentz. Stanzi is even included in that as well.
HawksFlyHigh
Well-Known Member
Thank you for pointing that out, albeit in a insulting tone lol.
I took the word of a post I found on Twitter without researching. I should know better.
