I get the game plan / opponent argument. That's exactly how it should be and how every team tries to do it.
I also understand that every team basically sticks to "their scheme" that, hopefully, they're pretty good at executing and has the right personnel to give you the best chance to win. From week to week, it comes down to minor tweaks that try to attack that opponent's weaknesses. At the same time, amidst the established game plan, you, hopefully, have also accounted for in-game "what-if" situations and have "plan B" that allows you to adapt to game flow.
The historical and perpetual issues that I've always bitched about with the Ferentz regime is that they are SO dogmatic to their scheme and SO committed to their personnel and SO reliant on precise execution that it often hinders the week-to-week variations and, especially, the in-game adaptations. The Ferentz regime takes it to such an immutable extreme that they often become inherent obstacles to Iowa's success
on any given day.
You see this play out multiple times, every game, every year ...
- Over use of unsuccessful plays in predictable situations:
-- How many horizontal passes on 3rd and 5+?
-- How many short-side rushes to start a series?
-- How many rushes into (predictable) 8-man boxes?
-- How is it there is exactly 1 (predictable) audible?
We'll never know ... because the Ferentzes never stop trying and rarely vary from script.
- Unwillingness to substitute when guys aren't executing.
-- They're apprentices, not pros, and more prone to have off days.
-- There are so many teaching moments (and opportunities for others) missed at the concern of bruised confidence.
- Seniority trumps skill ... Once a starter ...
These are just the basic examples. It would take many hours and many beers to break these (and the many others) down and I'm already encroaching on TLDR territory for many of the myopians, here.
Back to your point about NwU game plan ... Are you saying, Goodson, much sooner, would've disrupted the conservative, risk-averse game plan? I don't see it ... He's not any more a liability to fumble. He's a reliable receiver with more speed and agility in space - which seems to be a big part of the scheme and strategy with the swing passes. He brings more explosiveness to hit the hole - which, as you alluded to, is crucial for the Hawk's success, given such a porous, sub-par OL. He's maximized his opportunities in terms of being equally productive as Sargent and Young, yet, he continues to be the 3rd option.
I'm cool with a conservative game plan -
AFTER you establish control of the game. Goodson offers the better chance to do that because he brings a more explosive dynamic to the attack. For once, it would be nice to
TRY to play from ahead of the 8-ball, rather than plodding along and falling behind it. Unfortunately, as always, that Ferentzian dogmatic adherence to the script (and personal philosophical paranoias) forces the tighter margin for error.
You make great points about what a successful game plan would be to win the most important game of the rest of the season. We all know who the starters - and rotations - will be at Wisconsin.
Count my vote as "no confidence" in the Ferentz regime making any sort of timely, competent adaptations. They'll stick to script and, in all their glorious futility, continue to ploddingly attack Wisconsin's teeth as they get run out of Madison. How the West was lost - like so many other opportunities over the years.
