Lucky or talented

Insaneasylm

Well-Known Member
So what I'm wondering is, if Iowa under KF has been more lucky or have they been more talented. Like last year when were supposed to be good not great. We have a he'll of a season but all the stupid pundents cann't wait for us to lose because we have been lucky. This year we are supposed to be great so we shouldn't have to be lucky to win. Well we can all see the results.
 


There is a lot of parity, so I would argue we've been pretty lucky, but given the number of NFL players on the rosters the past few years, we've also been pretty good.
 


Also the offense and defense have the have to be lucky game plan. We are going to play base defense and if we are lucky there offense will make a mistake and it's the same way on offense.
 


It's a little of both. When you play as many close games as Iowa does (they play a grind it out style of football which is going to give you more close games) there are times when you will win and lose games because of good or bad luck. This year we've had more bad luck than good really. Last year was the opposite for the most part.

I miss the 2002 team that beat the crap out of most teams (aside from Purdue and the debacle against ISU) although that may have been a once in a lifetime team.
 


Luck/breaks has something to do with it for sure. Doesn't matter if you're pee wees or big ten. Last year we caught alot of breaks and this year couldn't catch one for nothin. That's sports it happens. We could play this years schedule ten times and we would have a number of different outcomes from undefeated to .500 its called a game for a reason. Still hard no matter how we slice it.
 


There is a lot of parity, so I would argue we've been pretty lucky, but given the number of NFL players on the rosters the past few years, we've also been pretty good.

Rarely do I agree with you okeefe4prez but this is what I was going to say.
 


But that us my point it seems like we are putting our hopes on being lucky in all games. Even in games that you shouldn't have to be lucky to win. Look at all the games how often are we just unlucky and we lose. I don't like hoping to win the lottery.
 


I know everyone keeps saying it fans, media etc. but its true this program plays better without expectations and under the radar. It will probably never set up any better to have a really special season than it did this year.
 




I think if you were to assume that the players we are recruiting are somewhat similar to what most of the Big 10 is getting, then our success over the last 12 years has been a result of this staff's ability to "coach up" players to close to their full potential.

But combine our style of play with our already slim margin for error, and you've got the potential to be in every game, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. You might not get blown out, but very rarely will we put teams away. We can look very good when all those coached up players play great on a given Saturday; we can also look very bad on any Saturday if many of our players have off-days.

2002 was the year-long anomaly...we actually had the talent that year to overwhelm people.
 


There is a lot of parity, so I would argue we've been pretty lucky, but given the number of NFL players on the rosters the past few years, we've also been pretty good.

You fence-sitter you.

Mark Levin is not going to be very happy with you.
 


Regarding last year, I don't think we were as lucky as people say. Regarding this year, I don't think we've been unlucky.

There's a big, big talent disparity between last year's team and this one. Yes, we brought back a lot of talent this year, but we also had a lot of talent depart as well. I don't think the coaches have done a very good job compensating for the weaknesses this has created, but it is really difficult to lose nearly a quarter of your team to the NFL in a given season.
 




Top