It is the execution. The philosophy that Iowa has is the only one that will produce results here. We do not have the athletes to run defenses that have multiple looks or blitzes. Execution is at a premium when you don't have the athletes that other schools have. It seems to me that Wisconsin is pretty vanilla, but they just dominate teams at the line of scrimmage by executing. Iowa has never possessed (and probably never will) the talent that can compensate for breakdowns in execution. The lack of execution becomes even more of a problem when players don't even want to be on the field. In the losses against NW and Minnesota, they didn't show any fire or desire to win the game. The most fire I saw out of anyone was when DJK got manhandled ten yards out of bounds and he tried to go after the guy after the play was over. When they did have a big play the look on some player's faces said "OK, great, is it over yet?".
Iowa Football: Is it Execution or Philosophy
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
I do not necessarily disagree with the overall premise of your post, but there are teams out there that run multiple schemes with talent levels equal to or less than Iowa's.
That OSU game with Coker running all over them and then pulling him is one of many things that make you scratch your head all year. In the Indiana game they're pass defense was ranked 116th or so out of 125 D1 teams and we come out and run 6 straight times and punt twice???????????
Last edited:
What this team lacked above all else was heart. The Minnesota game was very sad to watch. No emotion. And the coaches just take notes, and clap there hands. Where is the fire! After reading about Danny Mac going to North Texas I wondered if he would be a good fit as an assistant at Iowa to try to breathe life into the team. At the end of all 6 (including Indiana) why wasn't anyone trying to fire up the defense, get them to play with some heart or a sense of urgency? Instead, they go out on the field like a bunch of robots going through the motions and the offense comes out and does the same. Meanwhile, the other team is fired up, playing with a little extra effort and inspiration. Therefore, we lose. It's nice to be on an even keel when you get down early and then come back, but there is a time and a place for emotion, and we seemed to have very little. As a matter of fact, Michigan State was the last time I saw any emotion from the team on the field aside from DJK trying to punch someone. Of course we benched him to start the game. Probably showed too much emotion.
Kirk needs to be reminded of 2 things:
1. He is not coaching a NFL team.
2. He is not coaching a NFL team.
It is clearly evident that Kirk has a problem keeping his teams motivated for EVERY team they play, not just for the "big" games. NFL players are able to motivate themselves due to much more severe consequences for not being motivated (no bonus/contract or getting cut altogether). If a college kid doesn't execute, the most severe consequece is getting benched. It's also obvious even the coaching staff doesn't take "lesser" teams seriously (as evidenced by the difference in gameplans, or lack thereof) and this rubs off on the players. This lack of oversight by Kirk also spills over into player behavior off the field (which Kirk failed at miserably until hiring Chigozie Ejiasi to babysit his players for him).
Also, like lots of other posters have been saying, Kirk's scheme requires almost flawless execution to work. Iowa is not an NFL team where almost everyone on the roster can execute the scheme properly. At Iowa, if a couple starters get hurt, the system is screwed because we don't have the horses throughout the depth chart. And guess what, players WILL get hurt EVERY year. So maybe it's time to tweek the scheme to allow for a little wiggle room in regard to personnel available.
1. He is not coaching a NFL team.
2. He is not coaching a NFL team.
It is clearly evident that Kirk has a problem keeping his teams motivated for EVERY team they play, not just for the "big" games. NFL players are able to motivate themselves due to much more severe consequences for not being motivated (no bonus/contract or getting cut altogether). If a college kid doesn't execute, the most severe consequece is getting benched. It's also obvious even the coaching staff doesn't take "lesser" teams seriously (as evidenced by the difference in gameplans, or lack thereof) and this rubs off on the players. This lack of oversight by Kirk also spills over into player behavior off the field (which Kirk failed at miserably until hiring Chigozie Ejiasi to babysit his players for him).
Also, like lots of other posters have been saying, Kirk's scheme requires almost flawless execution to work. Iowa is not an NFL team where almost everyone on the roster can execute the scheme properly. At Iowa, if a couple starters get hurt, the system is screwed because we don't have the horses throughout the depth chart. And guess what, players WILL get hurt EVERY year. So maybe it's time to tweek the scheme to allow for a little wiggle room in regard to personnel available.
Jeebus
Well-Known Member
Excellent post.
I think there are some things that point to some type of off the field distraction. The mental focus just was not there.
Also think we missed Norm in game prep. The guy was the toast of the town after the orange bowl and people act like his absence isn't a big deal.
HawksFlyHigh
Well-Known Member
As I said in an earlier post, the defense of 2010 had the same problems that the defense of 2008 had.
Can't stop teams late in games.
ThunderHawk
Well-Known Member
Being predictable is lethal in football if you're anywhere close to the same talent level as your opponent.
What are their records? Just because they run multiple schemes with similar talent doesn't mean that they are successful at it.
The execution was not sharp in our losses this year. Penalties,like the one in the opening drive vs NW that cost us a first down in their end of the field really stung.
It was execution on all three teams...defense,offense and special teams.
That is on both the players and coaches.
I really think that losing Gettis and McMillan at guard and then Nielsen and Tarp at lb for the second half of the season had a big impact. Our running attack was never the same after koeppel came in,and our defense could not get them off the field on third down after Tarp and Nielsen went down.
I do not think the philosophy is bad,but tweaking is never to be dismissed.
It is like Fran on the bb team changing defenses often...confusing the opponent is never a bad thing.
I wonder if Phil Parker really felt the autonomy to gamble on defense,considering the situation with Norm?
This season turned on the small details,the mistakes,that end up costing games when they are close.
KF will re-evaluate in the offseason and ''clean it up''....I still trust him.
It was execution on all three teams...defense,offense and special teams.
That is on both the players and coaches.
I really think that losing Gettis and McMillan at guard and then Nielsen and Tarp at lb for the second half of the season had a big impact. Our running attack was never the same after koeppel came in,and our defense could not get them off the field on third down after Tarp and Nielsen went down.
I do not think the philosophy is bad,but tweaking is never to be dismissed.
It is like Fran on the bb team changing defenses often...confusing the opponent is never a bad thing.
I wonder if Phil Parker really felt the autonomy to gamble on defense,considering the situation with Norm?
This season turned on the small details,the mistakes,that end up costing games when they are close.
KF will re-evaluate in the offseason and ''clean it up''....I still trust him.
Bigtenchamp
Well-Known Member
The philosophy is a reflection of KF's conservative nature - the philosophy is not my favorite by any means, but we can win with it.
However the offensive system is inept for college football - in college football you need to score more points than in the NFL - our offense is the wrong fit for the college game.
However the offensive system is inept for college football - in college football you need to score more points than in the NFL - our offense is the wrong fit for the college game.
ColoradoHAWKEYE
Well-Known Member
It is the management of the instilled philosophy. Ours is the right philosophy if we are going to manage it correctly. (ie. making changes to personnel when injuries on both teams/sides of the game dictate, game management, clock management, team motivation, etc). If we are going to manage ineffectively for our current philosophy, then we need to change our philosophy for our type of management.
In the big picture, I believe we have a great premise of philosophy; such as recruiting, educating, practicing, etc. I think what we have needs to be adjusted/tweaked so as not to be as predictable come game day. This can't be hard to do if you/they truly want to make some changes. That of course is the million$ question.
Execution for any Hawk team is usually going to come down to 'some plays work and some don't'...we just need to pay extra attention and adjust/work extra on those that don't like kickoffs, PAT's, etc. (major injuries at key positions and D Coord aside) In game execution also is an offshoot of motivation (an extension of philosophy) and momentum. So I don't buy the lack of execution argument. It is more an argument of management as to what and when. This to me indicates an adjustment HAS to be made. A complete overhaul? not so sure.
In the big picture, I believe we have a great premise of philosophy; such as recruiting, educating, practicing, etc. I think what we have needs to be adjusted/tweaked so as not to be as predictable come game day. This can't be hard to do if you/they truly want to make some changes. That of course is the million$ question.
Execution for any Hawk team is usually going to come down to 'some plays work and some don't'...we just need to pay extra attention and adjust/work extra on those that don't like kickoffs, PAT's, etc. (major injuries at key positions and D Coord aside) In game execution also is an offshoot of motivation (an extension of philosophy) and momentum. So I don't buy the lack of execution argument. It is more an argument of management as to what and when. This to me indicates an adjustment HAS to be made. A complete overhaul? not so sure.
HawksFlyHigh
Well-Known Member
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Yes, adjustments CAN be made, but think a little deeper.
First, if you now have 3rd-string OLs in the mix, how is changing the scheme going to help? Flanking more receivers and changing the routes and timing doesn't just change it for the QB and receivers, it changes it for EVERYone. You don't give practice reps to 2nd-/3rd-/4th-string personnel and then CHANGE things should they be needed.
Ditto on the D side. When you start losing LBs--and we had already graduated two starters from a year ago--bringing in younger/less-experienced personnel is already a change. Losing MORE LBs only adds to the problem. And it is just about the WORST to suddenly change schemes, formations, etc.
So many people say, "Look what we did in 2004!". However, RB was really the only affected area. The blocking schemes didn't change, formations didn't change, etc., although Tate did take more snaps from the shotgun than most IOWA QBs I can remember.
Other people say, "What about DJK or McNutt or Chaney in the Wildcat?!" Great, on paper. And if we're predictable NOW, how well we fool ANY semi-competent D or staff when one of those guys lines up that way? Unless, of course, we go to a scheme that features the Wildcat.
Which, of course, leads to...personnel. Aside from the 3 I mentioned above, just how many "Wildcat" guys have you seen on this team since Hayden and KF have coached?
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
You and I have talked/texted our frustrations through numerous seasons. And while I agree that some of our "tweaking" and adjustments have induced some eye-rolling, let's not forget the times we HAVE made great adjustments and "tweaks".
Reading some of what Jared Clauss said in the Monday Morning QB article helps to understand just what we were up against. That said, there is absolutely NO excuse for the way we looked/played against Minnesota. And the potential for wins against Wisconsin and OSU are givens. NW? I don't know WHAT it will take to get back to bi**-slapping them again. If we can't beat them in a year where we go 11-2 and win a BCS bowl, hard to believe we'll EVER beat them again.
While I love Norm, I'm not sure we can expect him to make up for the losses of Jeff Tarpinian, Tyler Nielsen, Bruce Davis, Troy Johnson, Jeremiha Hunter, Jordan Bernstine, et. al., throughout the season. Ditto with KOK losing OL, having a RB quit (Wegher), another lost for the season (Hampton), two more (O'Meara and White) suffer game-missing injuries, PLSU ARob missing two games to concussion...AND have your eventual back-up RB play effectively early on after a broken clavicle.
Thus, "execution" on the D and O--or lack thereof, at times--is somewhat understandable. Missed PATs, giving up long KORs, not expecting fake punts when a team like Wisconsin has its back against the wall and we'd already seen MSU utilize fake punts and FGs...that all just flat-out sucks. But again, injuries can have an effect there, too.
Oh, what might have been...
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Yeah, Wisconsin, OSU and MSU are absolute proof of the ineptness of our offenive schemes.
Bigtenchamp
Well-Known Member
OSU runs alot more zone read and spread QB run - saying they have a similar offense to us or wisconsin is not really true - also I'm not sure I'd say MSU compares either - they run power run game - but their passing game is more diverse then ours.
Plus your sacrasm is misplaced because I clearing stated that "we need to score more points" - all those teams you mentioned , espcially wisconsin scored more points - though this year is not typical for wisconsin.
hawkis4life
New Member
The players didn't seem to have any fight left in them during and after nw. I really think they were looking ahead during both the Indiana and nw games. they got lucky at indiana. Once they lost at nw, that really got into their heads and the season was over, although I'm sure nobody would admit that. instead of being fired up after trouncing MSU they just looked as if they'd given up on the season.
Go back to Last year. you really never felt they were going to lose any game even after the lead was taken from them late in the 4th quarter. Stanzi always found a way to come back. You just didn't have that feeling this year. Very uninspiring level of play. This is all on offense, defense, special teams, but most of all coaching. it's the coaches job to mentally prepare the players. something got missed this year. if someone wasn't playing to their potential, the coaches should have benched that player in favor or a less experienced but more fired up player that has something to prove. that might have sent a clearer message.
Go back to Last year. you really never felt they were going to lose any game even after the lead was taken from them late in the 4th quarter. Stanzi always found a way to come back. You just didn't have that feeling this year. Very uninspiring level of play. This is all on offense, defense, special teams, but most of all coaching. it's the coaches job to mentally prepare the players. something got missed this year. if someone wasn't playing to their potential, the coaches should have benched that player in favor or a less experienced but more fired up player that has something to prove. that might have sent a clearer message.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
Obviously the players aren't always going to execute flawlessly. It's just a fact that a team isn't always going to have it's A game.
But when I look at the offense, I see an offense that is in the bottom half of the country in total offense more often than not, and sometimes in the bottom quarter. Even in our best years, when we had Shonn Greene for example, the offense still was not even Top 25. 2002 being the one and only exception in 12 years where we have cracked the Top-25 nationally in offense.
When you are consistently that poor on offense for over a decade, that points to philosophy. The only constant in that 12 years is the coaches and their philosophy. Players come and go, but the results have remained the same.
Defense - probably more execution and injuries this year, but I still think we could use a little tweaking of our gameplan based on the opponent's style of offense. The 1-size-fits-all philosophy just doesn't work all the time. See our record against NW.
But when I look at the offense, I see an offense that is in the bottom half of the country in total offense more often than not, and sometimes in the bottom quarter. Even in our best years, when we had Shonn Greene for example, the offense still was not even Top 25. 2002 being the one and only exception in 12 years where we have cracked the Top-25 nationally in offense.
When you are consistently that poor on offense for over a decade, that points to philosophy. The only constant in that 12 years is the coaches and their philosophy. Players come and go, but the results have remained the same.
Defense - probably more execution and injuries this year, but I still think we could use a little tweaking of our gameplan based on the opponent's style of offense. The 1-size-fits-all philosophy just doesn't work all the time. See our record against NW.
