HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
Interesting post. I wish I could answer your list of questions in the final paragraph. I can’t.
Is Kirk right?
- Thread starter InGoodCo
- Start date
Not sure which thread about offensive incompetence this should go in, so I will just put it in the top one.
In the chart below you see the national rank of efficiency ratings for the D, ST, and O going back as far as they are available (2007). This offensive stretch we are in is unprecedented. We have dipped before, but we haven't been screaming towards the earth over a span of 3 years like this:
This was posted by HawkeyeGamefilm on twitter: https://twitter.com/hawkeyegamefilm/status/1716437487092916610
In the chart below you see the national rank of efficiency ratings for the D, ST, and O going back as far as they are available (2007). This offensive stretch we are in is unprecedented. We have dipped before, but we haven't been screaming towards the earth over a span of 3 years like this:
This was posted by HawkeyeGamefilm on twitter: https://twitter.com/hawkeyegamefilm/status/1716437487092916610
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
Nope. We used to run a base 4-3 that by 2006 was showing significant stress depending on who was in the slot and who the third LB was. It was fine when we had ridiculous guys like Hitchens, Kirksely, Hodge, Greenway, Edds, Angerer, etc., but when we tried to run that with guys like Humpal, oof. We made a radical change to the defense to add the cash position and eliminate one of the LBs. This change was necessitated by modern offenses and Phil Parker has been an absolute stud at finding the cash. Huge schools with 5x our resources would kill to have the guys Phil has found and developed in that role. It's been the biggest coaching win in the Ferentz regime, that one tweak and our success with it.
This offensive system is also vastly different than what O'Keefe ran. O'Keefe's offense focused on a chess match, where you lull a team to sleep and then break tendencies at a key moment. It wasn't glamorous, but it worked, and it worked great in years where we had a solid line. I literally can't believe how bad our line play is now. I could watch 9-6 games all damned day if they are slugfests with the line fighting for every inch of ground. We don't have that.
I've been a vocal Brian backer. Huge supporter of Deacon as well. Those guys effed up big time on Saturday. Especially Brian. There was nothing but the most vanilla of vanilla plays out of the offense. It literally looked like they practiced two fvcking plays all week, the opening play and that long pass down the sideline that we completed. I just don't know what to say at this point.
No one is even asking for 300 yards of offense, just a few first downs in the second half and no bad turnovers. The talent on offense has fallen so far we can't even get that. Deacon has to see those deep blitzes. The line is not responsible for those guys, the QB is. I don't want to get down on the kid, but he can't do that. I seriously think that if you put this offense in the MAC with an average MAC defense that the team would be 3-9 at best. It's absolutely despicable.
This right here.
Only twice since 1999 has there been a two year period where the offense underperformed against the Iowa (recent) historic average.
1999 and 2000*
2012 and 2013**
* 'nuff said
** In 2013, we saw both improvement in the offense, and a very good, overperforming (against the Iowa historic average) defense.
There are two clear trends since 2017. That Phil Parker has unlocked a cheat code.
The other is simply....Brian.
We're on year 4 of underperforming. And it's not like the preceding year was all that stellar, resting somewhere just a skootch above average.
They can’t evaluate or recruit skill position talent. Take your nfl talent talk and stuff it because that has zero to do with the issue he’s had forever
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
For the most part you're wrong. Iowa has had plenty of skilled position players. I'd say they really suck at evaluating the QB position. I would say that they don't have a good scheme and more so, have problems evaluating and recruiting on the Oline.
Iowa is 11-3 over their last 13 games. Chill the F out. Tight End a skill position. Iowa has skill at the WR spots, they aren't particularly good at getting the ball to that talent as of late, but cool it. They have skill at the RB spots. The NFL talent has EVERYTHING to do with Iowa football and I mean EVERYTHING. That is why it's as good as it is and that is why it doesn't take giangantic dips in play...because everyone wants to play for a program that gets you to the NFL and goes 11-3 over a years time on the field.
You couldn't evaluate your favorite fast food restaurant buddy, maybe chill on calling out the guys who get paid to kill it at making Iowa the huge brand it is.
SCHawkeye2
Well-Known Member
This is demonstrably false.
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
Really? Demonstrably?
I mean, I think it's clear that guys want to play for winning programs. Can you prove to me that isn't the case. Demonstrably means you have clear evidence. Shoot your shot.
Iowa started the year with the 12th most players to make an NFL roster
https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/...lleges-most-players-nfl-opening-night-rosters
I would like you to also prove that my statement that kids DO NOT want to play for programs that get kids to the NFL at a high rate, and please do that demonstrably if possible.
My guess is he would demonstrate this by citing the sorry state of offensive skill position recruiting over the last decade. He could also cite how many offensive skill position players have left the program with remaining eligibility. Or he could cite the lack of offensive skill position success at the next level. I am not going to do the work to dig up statistics, but I think we all know what those stats would generally look like.
So, defensive players would certainly want to play for this program. Specialist would certainly want to play for this program. TEs and OL would want to play for this program (dreadful OL success over the last 5 years, but not do to lack of recruiting stars). But you clearly said EVERYONE wants to play for a winning program, and that would include offensive skill players, and they don't seem to want to play for Iowa recently.
And I don't blame them, sports are supposed to be fun, and it doesn't look fun to play offense for Iowa right now. That hasn't always been the case, these last 3 years are so much worse than any 3-year stretch in the KF era. The national rank tells that story, but the number of games under 200 total yards in the last 3 years that @dagdaj has cited, or the number of games where we have not even threatened to score, are even more glaring indicators.
SCHawkeye2
Well-Known Member
Kadyn Proctor says "Hi"
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
ok, but Iowa did ok in the portal this off season did they not? That was on the heels of the national rank of having one of the worse offenses in the sport. We got a former 4 star QB whos played in the national playoffs, a 4 star from Ohio State and Flipper Anderson's kid. They all wanted to play at Iowa. They all wanted to play for Kirk Ferentz and Brian Ferentz. Why? Why would they want to do that? Tell me. My guess is that NIL had something to do with it, and my guess is they have pretty good pitches to give recruits and a proven track record with players in the NFL. If that doesn't matter, and thankfully it does, Iowa would be in much worse shape. Kids want to play in the B1G, kids want to play for a winning program and kids want to play in places they have paths to the NFL.
Iowa has struggled at WR and QB, no argument, but what I said is not false and it sure as hell is "Demonstrably" false lol.
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting that Alabama isn't even WAY better at putting guys into the NFL? Of course kids want to play at AL. If you're trying to make a point, you're making mine. Kids want to play for winning programs that can get them to the NFL. Proctor was smart. He went to a school with a clear path to the NFL on the Oline. Who can blame him? Iowa is not on the same plain as Alabama. Has it ever been? Will it ever be? That's a no brainer and in no world is Iowa going to win very many recruiting battles against one of the most successful programs the last decade. Why? Because they win and they send guys to the pro's....you know the thing I was demonstrably false about.
Sure, those are anecdotes that indicate that SOME people want to play for Iowa. And Charlie Jones transferring and inability to recruit top-end WR talent are anecdotes that support not EVERYONE wants to play for Iowa. And that NOT EVERYONE subset includes a lot of people that sure could help out.
OK my dudes. Play nice. I'm here to save the day with my amateur data investigation.
(Don't hate me. My sophomore at Iowa just got an internship with an insurance company big enough to be located in the most well known street address in all of Iowa, and he has inspired me.)
I am somewhat skeptical in the value of evaluating "NFL draftees" as a metric to begin with.
I also think you're both wrong....and both right. The devil is in the details. So, let's do a deep dive, shall we?
85 players drafted since 2000 (which counts guys who played one full year under Kirk Ferentz as head coach)
38 offensive players
1 kicker
46 offensive players
Offensive player totals.
WR-4
QB-3
RB-2
TE-11
Linemen-18
The distribution between skill players to linemen seems statistically expected. There's way more linemen.
However, the 11 TEs is undoubtably statistically significant. One, it's higher than probably any other team in recent history. And two, it would...in theory...limit wide receiver chances. Fair enough. It's college. I think it has always been a shrewd move by both Ferentz (who clearly knew the value of the TE from Fry, I didn't do Fry's numbers). I'm good with overperforming TEs and average, or even slightly below average WRs.
I was a bit surprised by the distribution between offensive/defensive players. You would expect it to be balanced (which it is....not too terribly off from 50-50), but not if you believe that Iowa doesn't produce good offenses. I very much believe they do produce good offenses. At least up through a certain point. The distribution though, is clearly fronted weighted on the time axis. Meaning, something has changed.
2000-2017
23 Offensive players drafted
WR-3 (.176/year)
QB-2 (.117/year)
RB-2 (.117/year)
TE-8 (.47/year)
Linemen-15 (.88/year)
2018 onwards (counts players who played at least one full year with Brian as the OF)
8 offensive players
WR-1 (.1666/year)
QB-1 (.1666/year)
RB-0 (0/year)
TE-3 (.5/year)
Linemen-3 (.5/year)
Statistically, Brian is as good (or better) with QBs as any OC under KF. Same with WRs and RBs. Course, the marginalilty is quite high with so few being drafted, but I have no problem saying they're AT LEAST comparable. Even in terms of QBs. I would say they're probably not out of line with the averages of most other mid-tier FBS teams. Hard to say on TEs, a little more data there. Hard to not give Brian his due and say he's marginally outperforming KF historical era, but I'm sure he's outerperming the FBS and maybe like his predecessors, all of college football.
Linemen though? I would argue a 40% drop is significant.
So, just to check and make sure he isn't due some credit for potentially inflated numbers in preceeding years of players drafted during his tenure as OL coach.
Offensive linemen drafted:
2000-2012: 13 (1.0833/year)
2013-2017: 3 (.75/year)
Nope. He underperformed by the metric of "sending tons of guys to the NFL" as their immediate coach, and is not responsible in any way for previous higher averages. He is underperforming in "sending tons of guys to the NFL" against the historical average under previous offensive coordinators.
In fact, he's miserable. By any measurable metric, except two. Which is, he is in the black when it comes to attracting players in the portal. And this is a metric I do not take lightly and fully ready to credit him for. Then again, we've only got 2 years of this data.
The other, as InGoodCo rightfully and wrongfully often points out, is wins. It's rightful in evaluating the program, and even Kirk Ferentz under those metrics. And yes, you can argue his choice in OC contributes to that. But only part of it. And, there's no way to evaluate what the performance would have been without him. So, we can only evaluate Brian on his data, and I believe there is enough data to do so.
My personal opinion, based on data.
Kirk's great. Always has been. Always could be.
Brian is not great by any measurable metric except the two I noted.
Brian is the problem. Kirk is not. But will become one if this continues to play out as the data suggests. College football is at an inflection point. Iowa is at an inflection point. Kirk, and other powers that be, will become the problem if they don't solve the immediate problem of Brian.
Full dislosure:
My data came from Wikipedia.
And I eyeball counted most of it. The numbers could be off by a player or two. Which could make major differences. But, not in the data that really matters.
Also, my math could be wrong. I'm not good at this. I'm just inspired by my kid and the value of data. I probably should have worked harder at math and got into this racket of data science.
Last edited:
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
Charlie wanted to play for Iowa, he came here and Iowa afforded him the opportunity to take the next step to Purdue.
I won't argue that Iowa has struggled at recruiting, developing and keeping both WR's. It is an absolute blind spot for Iowa footbal. But it was for Hayden Fry too. Maybe that's an Iowa thing right?
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
I enjoyed this post, thanks for leg work. We're both right and wrong but at least I am still going to cheer for Iowa to win out. I can sleep knowing that and I am sure he can sleep knowing he's a fan cheering for his team he cares enough to post on a message board all day about to lose games.
I totally understand where you're coming from. I was an a$$hole about Kirk Ferentz from 1999-2001.
I was younger and dumber and was probably still active on various non-sports related Usenet forums (mostly tech related). Usenet, being the wild west and dark underbelly of the internet. Basically, think the worst of social media and multiply it by a hundred.
I promised myself I would put my faith in Kirkball and enjoy the ride. And I have enjoyed it immensely. I am personally glad you challenge me lately....to keep some perspective. And I am doing my best.
But the data on Brian, what we can measure him by....is awful.
Someone posted that Hemingway quote from "The Sun Also Rises" (the only Hemingway book I ever read for enjoyment...not assigned...and actually enjoyed)....
"How did you go bankrupt?"
"Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly."
I think it is more than acceptable to fear this reality. I own a small factory. I basically have 3 "product lines" serving three different markets. My company is doing fine, and has for a long time. Some very good years and some average years sprinkled in. But, next year....we will be down to two product lines. We bought one 15 years ago. It paid for itself in the first few years. Even turned a net profit and was valuable in terms of staffing and machinery additions. At this point, if we tried to keep this product line going, we would not have a good year next year. It would be a waste of time, effort, and money. Same would happen every year until eventually, it would put us out of business.
The above paragraph is not made up in any way. I have a great business. Made up of different product lines. It's quite successful. One of those product lines is not. The numbers show it. We cannot maintain it. So we end it and move on. For the future of the business.
So if I follow, you are suggesting we get rid of offense altogether, and punt on first down. Bold strategy, I think it could work.
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
I believe Kirk might see that as Iowa's best chance to win double digit games this season and based off what I've seen, he's probably right.
That's what I suggested around the 8 minute mark on Saturday. And again when they got the ball back at 3:32 left.
Despite not doing so, It still almost worked if it weren't for that pesky replay official. Even then without the punt return, they would have had around 2.5 minutes instead of 1.5 minutes. Slightly less harried to gain enough yards for a 73 yard field goal attempt.
But, I think you know what I mean.
I go back to the 3 legged table. If one leg is broken, it might still function as a table. Even quite well if you stick some cardboard coasters under. But at some point, that leg is bound to completely fail. And at that point, you no longer even have an unstable table. You have pieces of a table on the floor. And your floor will be covered in spilled food and broken glassware. The sensible thing to do is to prevent that from happening and fix the broken leg. I'm fine with a repaired leg of the Kirk Ferentz table.
