IowaLaw's 2019 Final Report Card: Offense

[HawkGold]

Man the Ferentz ass kissers are out today.

1st this is college and not the pros. KFs philosophy is very effective in the pro game. You know why? The majority of teams all have the best talent and they play it close because of the lack of talent gap.

In college, you have some shitty teams. Teams that you should absolutely roll over EVERY year. Not be forced to block 2 FGs at the end of the game or flat out lose.

This offense sucks. I think BF has some ideas, but is limited. Dad plays not to lose. Thats a pro philosophy. And certainly not one learned under Hayden. College is about playing to win.

It wouldn't NFL fly unless you had superior talent.

 

[HawkGold]

You're full of it. This same QB and offensive coordinator scored 48, 42 and 63 points in conference ROAD games last year. I'm done arguing with scum. Just watch the games sometime. They were not risking turnovers in the red zone. They definitely had no trouble getting there. That's why scoring was down. Fact, period, over and out.

Your posts are all sound and fury, signifying nothing. There are numerous examples of teams who rely on the defense and kicking game to win, and sometimes win big. Ever hear of the 2000 Baltimore Ravens?

Those Ravens were hard to watch. Had some less than ideal citizens too.

 

[dirtwrap]

dirt - I appreciate the attempt to rationally contribute to a college football discussion. In this case, however, you're wrong in so many ways.

First, you attempt to justify Brian's error in judgment relegating Goodson to 3rd team for the majority of the season because he "wasn't good" at the beginning of the year and suddenly improved later in the year. That is what justified him eventually moving ahead of Sargent and Young. The facts don't support your homerism.

It was clear that Goodson was the best back from day one. He gained 97 yards in one of the first games of the year, averaging 8.1 yards per carry. Fans could see it. Tv announcers could see it. The excitement was there. But despite that, Brian benched him and went with Sargent and Young the following week, a loss to Michigan, with Goodson getting just 6 carries.

Next, you try to argue that no union card exists at Iowa? That's too easy, as even the biggest Ferentz fans have acknowledged it. As a general rule, once a guys starts, whether it's at quarterback (Christensen, Rudock, etc.) or any other position, it either takes an injury or consistent and repeated incompetence to unseat them (see Rastatter the last two years who took 100% of the punts despite having a scholarship punter sitting on the bench). Of course, the union card only seems to apply to guys Kirk likes. In other situations, guys get an unreasonably short leash. Amani Jones started the first game last year, only to be yanked in the 2nd quarter and never to be heard from again. Wadley couldn't see the field despite making huge plays early in his career because he "didn't weigh over 190 lbs." Given Kirk's love for Ragaini, It's unclear what he needs to do sit out a few plays, as dropping 3 passes in a game didn't do it.

Finally, you say Iowa had "injuries at extremely key positions" explains Iowa's losses? Key injuries compared to who? Every football team has injuries, and if Iowa had to list the 10 most key positions on the team that Iowa could ill afford to lose, guard wouldn't make the cut. Some teams were down to their 3rd string QB. Purdue lost their Heisman trophy hopeful WR. Stanley & Epenesa didn't miss a snap due to injury, nor did Linderbaum or the DLine.

With respect to Goodson, I did not say he was very good to begin the season. What I said was that you cannot assume that he was just as good at the beginning of the season than he is now.

As far as which players play on this team, or any team for that matter, depends on who has the most positive impact on the team. With respect to Goodson, there is more to the running back position than just running the football. There is ball security, which any and every coach in football preaches from day one. There are protection schemes and blitz pickups. There is the capacity of the playbook, how many different plays and packages can a back run. Goodson is just a true freshman! How much of all of this did you or do you think he can handle? Obviously the coaches identified his talent right away because they played him a lot from the beginning, but limited him more against Michigan and Penn State, our 5th and 6th games of the year.

Why? Because of all the teams on our schedule, they had the most talent on the defensive line and linebackers. And what they were going to do was man us up on the edges and come after the quarterback. Nobody else on our schedule had the horses to do it. So the coaches I am sure, in game 5 of Goodson's career, had more faith in Sargent and Young to pick up these blitzes and try to give Nate the time to throw because that game was going to be won on the edges.

Now when you face a defense that will bring multiple complex blitzes, what do you want to have to counter that? I dont know what your answer is but I would say a cohesive offensive line. So against those two teams, we had Jackson back as a shell of his capability, Banwart out and Schott out in the interior. It was the worst time to be down any offensive lineman, let alone 2 or 3 of them.

Against Wisconsin, everyone knew that they posed a different kind of challenge. What they were going to do was use their best player and the sheer size of their offensive line. The game within the game here is, much like Iowa, Wisconsin wants to force the defense to bring more defenders in the box to stop the run, where then play action and advantageous 1 on 1 matchups are all over the place. We refuse to do that at all cost, and this puts tremendous pressure on our defensive line and then mostly the middle linebacker. Why? First because the MLB identifies the offensive formations and personnel and makes the line calls, the coach of the front 7 if you will. Second, as the defensive lineman get swallowed up in the play and the other linebackers are covering tight ends and or slot receivers, it is often left up to the middle linebacker to be one on one with the running back. Against the best running back we would face all year, and probably the second best running back KF has had to face, our senior MLB was out and replaced with a freshman. Again, nothing against freshmen, but experience breeds wisdom and they have neither.

To finish this off, I just want to be complete. You mention Purdue as an example of injuries to QB and receiver. I agree with you, tough to lose those guys and a big reason why they won 4 games. As far as the quarterbacks are concerned, so much goes into that position and once that decision is made, going forward the whole team goes as they go. Every once in a while you see a qb come off the bench and take over, not very often, especially with a pro style quarterback. In a system like the air raid or spread where the reads are more simple it is more likely. Know that it is a huge decision to do it mid season, because so much had been invested in that qb, especially a junior or senior. The playbook and play calls are partly designed around the strengths and weaknesses of the player. That player gets all the first team reps in practice. The continuity with receivers. The trust in reading the defenses, etc. You dont just start jerking people out everytime they make a mistake, and if you do you won't coach very long. One example of this was last year with Flacco and Jackson. Everyone knew Jackson had more talent. But was he ready for primetime? Was that the union card? Should Harbaugh have played Jackson from day 1? If you watched their playoff game against the chargers, Flacco was terrible and ended up getting benched because it was so bad, but Jackson was very limited when he came in. He has all the talent in the world be he needed to be the number 1 option through the off season and camps to be able to have the same chance as the guy he replaced. And now he is the guy.

Not everyone is ready when you want them to be ready.

 

[Ree4]

The regular season is over and the Hawks are sitting at 9-3, with a mid-level bowl game to look forward to. Three close losses, and several close wins. All in all, the season played out as the prognosticators predicted, with zero upset wins and zero shocking losses. It's now time for the coaches to earn their paychecks and determine why the Hawks couldn't even be in the conversation winning the Big 10 west in the last month of the season.

Quarterbacks: C. Contrary to popular opinion, Nate Stanley did not have a good year compared with his peers. In fact, a strong argument can be made that he plateaued his sophomore year despite all of the hard work he put in since that time. Statistically, Nate finished: 9th in the Big 10 in QB efficiency; 8th in yards per attempt; 7th in completion percentage (58%); and 4th in total passing yards. Sure, the Iowa media loves Nate because he's humble and shy and randys around when in front of a microphone, but the guy never developed the "it" factor needed to command a team down the stretch. With Jack Coan (Wis) or Peyton Ramsy (Indiana) at QB, this team likely finishes 11-1. On the other hand, with Northwestern's QB, this team finishes 7-5. Disappointing way for a 3 year starter to finish his career after much promise as a sophomore.

RBs: D+. With all 3 RBs returning from last year, plus the addition of Georgia's high school player of the year, most expected an uptick in Iowa's RB play this year. It didn't happen. While each back showed flashes of brilliance, the Hawks had a 100 yard rusher in just 1 Big 10 game this year, and that was this week. Goodson is the future of the position, but when you compare him with what the rest of the Big 10, it's sobering how far behind the curve the Hawks are. Each of the top 10 backs in the conference had over 740 yards, with Dobbins and Taylor over 1,600 yards. Iowa's leading rusher, Goodson, had just 590 yards, and was rarely in the game when the game was on the line. Five teams had backs averaging more than 6 yards per carry. Goodson averaged 5.1, Sargent averaged just 4.6.

WRs/TEs: C-. Although the WRs were much improved from the embarrassing WR corps in years past, they were still subpar by Big 10 standards. Smith, Smith-Marsette, and Tracy were good by Iowa standards, but none finished in the top 15 in the conference in receptions or yards, even though Nate was 2nd in the conference in pass attempts. David Bell (Purdue), for example, had 86 receptions as a freshmen. Iowa's leading receiver, Ragaini, had half that number. Minnesota had two different 1,000 yard receivers. Purdue nearly did as well. Iowa's top WR, by contrast, had 676 yards (Smith-Marsette). The TEs, at TE U, were non factors this year. None had more than 9 receptions all year. By comparison, Hock had 49 catches last year and Fant had another 39. LaPorta looks like the next great Hawkeye TE, but only if Kirk Ferentz remembers his name in his post game interviews.

Total Offense: F. Brian Ferentz continues to be the poster boy for why corporations prohibit nepotism as he climbs the coaching ranks on his dad's coattails. In his 3rd year learning to be OC on the job, his offense finished 11th in the Big 10, ahead of mighty Northwestern, & Rutgers. The Hawks averaged just 23 points per game, while Wisconsin averaged 36 and Minnesota averaged 34. Brian's offense was 98th in D1 football in total yards...with a 3 year starting QB at the helm and the best WR corp in a decade. Something has to change next year or it won't matter how good the defense is. Perhaps O'Keefe needs to take the reigns and let Brian focus on his stellar "run game coordinator" skills?

Somehow I have come across rare footage of you, not sure who to credit though as it was provided anonymously.

 

[SteveGarvey1]

If Iowa gets on F on overall offensive grade, then what would Rutgers get?

C- seems about right to me. We did win 9 games and the offense did enough in many of them to win.

 

[Fryowa]

If Iowa gets on F on overall offensive grade, then what would Rutgers get?

C- seems about right to me. We did win 9 games and the offense did enough in many of them to win.

We’re not grading on a curve, here.

Curve grading is for losers.

 

[dirtwrap]

We’re not grading on a curve, here.

Curve grading is for losers.

I agree with Fry, I think a solid C is what this offense deserves overall. Keep in mind though that even a C on offense, in this system, with this scheme, with the style of defense we play, and in this division of this conference, can still win 10-11 games a year and titles.

 

[CP87]

Two things stand out to me as major mismanagement this year on offense:

1) Kirk, Brian and polasek seriously missed the target on developing guards. You can say injuries contributed, but day 1 they critically overestimated the talent level at guard in 2019, which they usually don’t do. They Didn’t develop legitimate big ten level guards for 2019
2) underutilization of Goodson. I know he’s a true freshman, but he clearly has a level of talent as a freshman an Kirk and Brian haven’t seen at RB in 21 years. My guess is in practice they just couldn’t get themselves to believe his raw talent could transfer to the field as fast as it did.

Goodson led the RBs in touches on the season. I also think it is notable that once he assumed the starting role (MN), he had to leave each of the next 3 games at some point with injury.

Are you sure he was ready for a heavier workload than what he had? We all love the potential, but this is big boy football, and it takes its toll.

I think a stronger criticism would be the coaches should have found more creative ways to use him, more so than just more touches.

 

[CP87]

We all know that the OP analysis is worthless, however, it does require some context. Hindsight usually ignores context, and this is just another example of that. So here I will serve you some:

1. Goodson, while obviously the best running back we have on this team right now, is not the same back he was in game 1 or 4. His learning curve has been steep and he has developed over the course of the season to be the featured back. So don't get fooled into thinking that because he is the best back now that he automatically should have been on day 1 and that the coaches were inept. This same argument goes for Tracy and LaPorta as well.
2. Speaking of inept coaches, or the perception thereof, that if any of the argument that the "union card" exists or that there is favoritism, check out how many freshmen and sophomores are playing on this team. This team is pretty young in a lot of spots. The proof is that the coaches play the best players and the ones that give them the best chance to win the game.
3. For all the negativity for the Iowa style of play, remember that had we played ideal Ferentz ball of protecting the football, taking points when you can and hit the fg's, stop the run, run the ball, make the other team play the long field, don't give up the big play, dictate the tempo, etc., we more than likely go undefeated. The system works.
4. Remember the injuries at extremely key positions and how that affected our season. The offensive line was a mess against psu and michigan, and in my opinion for what he does and what his depth was, Welch was by far the most valuable player on the defense. Know he makes the line calls and is the biggest run stopper. Having him out against wisconsin was a killer.

At the end of the day, we go 9-3. No we didnt win the conference or the division, but we are a very solid top 20 team. After all of those obstacles, we are still a top 20 team. That's a big deal. And we probably had a top 5 schedule with respect to high end opponents, especially on the road.

Great point on Welch. He was out the 2nd half of PSU when they kept popping off 5 yards at a time. Had he been in there, it could have been a different story.

 

[seepig]

Blah, blah, blah.

LOL how would you grade the positions? I know who cares enjoy the wins but this board is for conjecture, emotion and like the saying says everyone got an opinion just like an A hole...

 

[seepig]

The regular season is over and the Hawks are sitting at 9-3, with a mid-level bowl game to look forward to. Three close losses, and several close wins. All in all, the season played out as the prognosticators predicted, with zero upset wins and zero shocking losses. It's now time for the coaches to earn their paychecks and determine why the Hawks couldn't even be in the conversation winning the Big 10 west in the last month of the season.

Quarterbacks: C. Contrary to popular opinion, Nate Stanley did not have a good year compared with his peers. In fact, a strong argument can be made that he plateaued his sophomore year despite all of the hard work he put in since that time. Statistically, Nate finished: 9th in the Big 10 in QB efficiency; 8th in yards per attempt; 7th in completion percentage (58%); and 4th in total passing yards. Sure, the Iowa media loves Nate because he's humble and shy and randys around when in front of a microphone, but the guy never developed the "it" factor needed to command a team down the stretch. With Jack Coan (Wis) or Peyton Ramsy (Indiana) at QB, this team likely finishes 11-1. On the other hand, with Northwestern's QB, this team finishes 7-5. Disappointing way for a 3 year starter to finish his career after much promise as a sophomore.

RBs: D+. With all 3 RBs returning from last year, plus the addition of Georgia's high school player of the year, most expected an uptick in Iowa's RB play this year. It didn't happen. While each back showed flashes of brilliance, the Hawks had a 100 yard rusher in just 1 Big 10 game this year, and that was this week. Goodson is the future of the position, but when you compare him with what the rest of the Big 10, it's sobering how far behind the curve the Hawks are. Each of the top 10 backs in the conference had over 740 yards, with Dobbins and Taylor over 1,600 yards. Iowa's leading rusher, Goodson, had just 590 yards, and was rarely in the game when the game was on the line. Five teams had backs averaging more than 6 yards per carry. Goodson averaged 5.1, Sargent averaged just 4.6.

WRs/TEs: C-. Although the WRs were much improved from the embarrassing WR corps in years past, they were still subpar by Big 10 standards. Smith, Smith-Marsette, and Tracy were good by Iowa standards, but none finished in the top 15 in the conference in receptions or yards, even though Nate was 2nd in the conference in pass attempts. David Bell (Purdue), for example, had 86 receptions as a freshmen. Iowa's leading receiver, Ragaini, had half that number. Minnesota had two different 1,000 yard receivers. Purdue nearly did as well. Iowa's top WR, by contrast, had 676 yards (Smith-Marsette). The TEs, at TE U, were non factors this year. None had more than 9 receptions all year. By comparison, Hock had 49 catches last year and Fant had another 39. LaPorta looks like the next great Hawkeye TE, but only if Kirk Ferentz remembers his name in his post game interviews.

Total Offense: F. Brian Ferentz continues to be the poster boy for why corporations prohibit nepotism as he climbs the coaching ranks on his dad's coattails. In his 3rd year learning to be OC on the job, his offense finished 11th in the Big 10, ahead of mighty Northwestern, & Rutgers. The Hawks averaged just 23 points per game, while Wisconsin averaged 36 and Minnesota averaged 34. Brian's offense was 98th in D1 football in total yards...with a 3 year starting QB at the helm and the best WR corp in a decade. Something has to change next year or it won't matter how good the defense is. Perhaps O'Keefe needs to take the reigns and let Brian focus on his stellar "run game coordinator" skills?

Man you are taking some grief for having one Iowa Law! I think your grades are overly harsh but what you say isn't completely wrong.

 

[homes]

I don't know if Brian Ferentz is going to be a great OC or not. He's learning as he goes. I don't think he's awful. Some of the play calls have been very good, breaking tendencies. The end around to ISM against Nebraska was very good, rather than the ball coming from Stanley as it typically does on that play, it started as a run to the right with Goodson, who sold it as Nebraska was selling out the short side of the field, like most teams do when Iowa runs that play to the short side.

The biggest hurdle it appears to me that he needs to get over is adapting to changing circumstances during the game. Again, I don't know a lot about the details, but it appears to me that Iowa gets stuck on offense in the second half a lot as the defense has responded and Iowa doesn't counterpunch. That seems to me to be a glaring hole in the offense which I can only attribute to Brian's lack of experience.

 

[Knight78]

You just get dumber and dumber. Guard not one of the ten most key positions on a team? Do you watch football and listen to analysts (who are usually former players or coaches and not wannabe lawyers?). You must not, because you obviously have missed about 10,641 references to the offensive line being "the heart and soul of a team". Guess what happened to Iowa's 2012 season about ten minutes after they lost two offensive linemen in one quarter for the season.

Injuries to key players can be huge. Remember how good Rondale Moore was? His loss probably single handedly prevented Purdue from attaining a bowl bid.

Why don't you jump in? Trust me, the water's fine.

Agreed about the guard position. A lot of issues if they are not in sync with the rest of the line. Michigan was specifically mentioned. I remember how many times Stanley needed to step up in the pocket but he couldn't because the guards weren't doing what needed to be done. As I recall (and I'll admit my memory is rather spotty any more) we had a revolving door at both guard positions for several games at that time trying to find an answer.

Also with our running game, guards are necessary to keep the linebackers and dbacks from shooting the gaps in the outside zone. And they also are who pulls for the misdirection traps we tend to run with Goodson. As is typical with Ferentz-coached teams, the O-line got better as the season went; got better as the players settled into their roles.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

Blah, blah, blah.

Exactly how I feel when I open HN and on front page I see something written by David Schwartz.

 

[HawkeyeDenis]

I agree with the C grade. However; Quarterback's best friend is a good running game. Iowa had no running game to speak of this year. Losing 2 tight ends to the NFL was tough to replace.

The WR production was affected by the lack of a running game and to a lesser extent Nate Stanley's inaccurate throws.

Having those two tight ends might have been the difference in one or two of the three losses.

 

[Motigerhawk]

There are 125 FBS teams. We were 98th in yards per game. We were 100th in Points per game. So by that measure we are really a D or D-. I think that is pretty fair. But like others, because of the 9 wins, I will give them the half grade and give the offense a solid D.

 

[Ree4]

There are 125 FBS teams. We were 98th in yards per game. We were 100th in Points per game. So by that measure we are really a D or D-. I think that is pretty fair. But like others, because of the 9 wins, I will give them the half grade and give the offense a solid D.

This has been discussed ad nauseam on this board. Anybody that uses flawed metrics like total points or total yards is trying to exaggerate their argument to paint the offense in a negative light. Points per possession are a much better metric. While the offense was not good this year, it wasn't as bad as the total points/totals yards metrics would suggest. Our lack of red zone success is what really hurt us this year.

 

[Motigerhawk]

This has been discussed ad nauseam on this board. Anybody that uses flawed metrics like total points or total yards is trying to exaggerate their argument to paint the offense in a negative light. Points per possession are a much better metric. While the offense was not good this year, it wasn't as bad as the total points/totals yards metrics would suggest. Our lack of red zone success is what really hurt us this year.

Caused by the inability to get those last 20 yards which leads to a low point per game production. Not sure how that is flawed. Seems pretty simple. You dont move the ball or score points, seems to me its a pretty bad offense.

 

[SteveGarvey1]

We’re not grading on a curve, here.

Curve grading is for losers.

I might be a loser but I'd still say C- is a more accurate grade than F.

 

[Motigerhawk]

The 5 teams we played with a pulse this year, we scored 18, 3, 12, 22, and 23.

The 2 teams we scored in the 20s against was caused by Iowa opening up their offense. We got after Wiscy in the 4th. Too little, too late. We opened it up int he 1t against Minny and had them buried until we turtled in the 2nd.

Pretty obvious the problem is on the coaching staff. The play it close to the vest works against the powder puffs, usually. But not against the good teams, usually.