McNamara Update

[Teddy]

I do think we will run it up against the non-conference opponents. The coaches listen to the big donors, and the big donors weren't happy with last year's clown show offense.

Also, give the old man credit, he's forgotten more football than any of us know and maybe, he wants to win big as well. You know the offensive players and coaches want to serve the critics a shit sandwich and are really looking to take it out on someone.

I'm thinking 50ish to 10ish. Probably upper 30s low 40s on the actual Clowns and get up in the 50s again the next game.

Nobody cares about the "contract" except message board members, but they do want significant offensive improvement.

 

[Teddy]

View attachment 10236

The real Custer was shot in the head very early on the first day of battle. He was probably killed in the river as the 7th recrossed and headed for high ground. The battalion lost all cohesion and fled in small groups instead of forming a line and massing their fire-probably no time and no one in command to tell 'em to do so.

Other than Custer, a bad commander in reality, the real rat in the woodshed is the Dept. of War. The Dept. felt that the cavalry needed only breech loading Spencer carbines instead of the magazine fired guns of the Civil War-too expensive. The Army also conducted no shooting drills/target practice in the cavalry-also too expensive. Grant finally overrode is own Dept of War to order the repurchase of the Spencer repeaters and regular target practice with repeaters after Little Big Horn.

And, for the final Teddy trivia-the Cavalry no longer used sabers in combat. Most guys carried four pistols, their Union issued carbine and a shotgun of some kind. All the sabers were stored in crates on Benteen's hill. The officers usually substituted a Henry or Winchester 15 round rifle, as did some enlisted ranks. Families would save money to buy Billy Blue the most dangerous infantry weapon of its era.​

 

[STILLBUSTER]

Moronic take. And I say that with all due respect, xir, but the take is moronic. The coach's kid has a stipulation in his contract that he has to try to put up 25 a game on average. Now sure, that clause carries as much weight legally as a letter to Santa Claus, but Kurt is going to try to make sure his boy gets his 25 points per game. You don't average 25 points per game with Iowa's offense and schedule by only putting up 30 against Utah State. Gotta run that score to give the youngster some cushion on that 25 ppg requirement. I see this one shaking out 69-3 or maybe 69-0. They have to get close to two games of offense out of this one just to make sure there is some turd polish left by the end of the season when we hit that point where Iowa's offense can't score more than 14. My biggest hope is that we don't get Cade hurt by forcing him to stay out there in garbage time to hit Brain's number.

Well ... I do have it on good authority that I can be moronic.

None-te-less, what makes you so sure the offense is capable of racking up 69??!! Unless, of course, weere gonna see 5 pick-6s, which makes more sense.

 

[haydensly]

Moronic take. And I say that with all due respect, xir, but the take is moronic. The coach's kid has a stipulation in his contract that he has to try to put up 25 a game on average. Now sure, that clause carries as much weight legally as a letter to Santa Claus, but Kurt is going to try to make sure his boy gets his 25 points per game. You don't average 25 points per game with Iowa's offense and schedule by only putting up 30 against Utah State. Gotta run that score to give the youngster some cushion on that 25 ppg requirement. I see this one shaking out 69-3 or maybe 69-0. They have to get close to two games of offense out of this one just to make sure there is some turd polish left by the end of the season when we hit that point where Iowa's offense can't score more than 14. My biggest hope is that we don't get Cade hurt by forcing him to stay out there in garbage time to hit Brain's number.

Or, I could see KF throwing a middle finger at the contract provision and coming up about 3 points short of hitting the average at the end of the season He's not the type to run up the score to begin with. It would be his "I dare you" action...

 

[Teddy]

Well ... I do have it on good authority that I can be moronic.

Wives don't count.

 

[Teddy]

Or, I could see KF throwing a middle finger at the contract provision and coming up about 3 points short of hitting the average at the end of the season He's not the type to run up the score to begin with. It would be his "I dare you" action...

Kirk is like 67 not 17.

 

[JoeyLabasForPresident]

That doesn't prepare players for the NFL game

Why should I care about this? Even if I take this as a true statement for certain positions (QB and WR?) what offensive positions that Iowa puts in the NFL are harmed?

and wouldn't be a long term solution.

Sure it would. What isn't a long term solution is continuing to run out an offense that has performed well twice in the last decade of play, and even that is being a median or slightly below collegiate offense.

Top recruits wouldn't come here. You think we have a lot of 3 stars now, that would be the top with many 2 stars.

We don't get top WR recruits as it is and we seem to have a knack for getting mediocre performance out of 3 and 4 star QBs. Remind me how many Iowa WRs have been drafted the last twenty years. Still not seeing any sort of negative.

Iowa's best selling point to recruits and and to stay competitive is selling them their rate of getting guys into the NFL. If you did what you propose, it would be detrimental to the program.

The positions Iowa puts in the NFL aren't harmed by running this style of offense. Our TEs will still do their thing, because they are actually strong players historically, unlike our WRs. TE is the only position you can make any case for potentially losing production in a run-heavy option offense, and that is not a given. We already run a run-heavy offense. We just do it badly. GT had some ballers at WR when they ran the triple option. They had WRs who had NFL success under Paul Johnson. Kirk never has.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Why should I care about this? Even if I take this as a true statement for certain positions (QB and WR?) what offensive positions that Iowa puts in the NFL are harmed?

Sure it would. What isn't a long term solution is continuing to run out an offense that has performed well twice in the last decade of play, and even that is being a median or slightly below collegiate offense.

We don't get top WR recruits as it is and we seem to have a knack for getting mediocre performance out of 3 and 4 star QBs. Remind me how many Iowa WRs have been drafted the last twenty years. Still not seeing any sort of negative.

The positions Iowa puts in the NFL aren't harmed by running this style of offense. Our TEs will still do their thing, because they are actually strong players historically, unlike our WRs. TE is the only position you can make any case for potentially losing production in a run-heavy option offense, and that is not a given. We already run a run-heavy offense. We just do it badly. GT had some ballers at WR when they ran the triple option. They had WRs who had NFL success under Paul Johnson. Kirk never has.

Dude, as much as I would luv to see it, it just ain't gunna happen. You are thinking too simplistically. Even top WR's and TE's don't want to play in a system that doesn't resemble what is ran in the NFL. Why would a player commit the most important 4-5 years of their lives take the chance to develop with a team using a system so different from the league? You mention the TE's, but again, you are only focusing on the routes and receiving. Any TE that might have a chance in the NFL is not gunna want to take a chance learning the blocking schemes for a wishbone offense.

In addition, you would throw out any chance, slim as it might be, to even remotely get anything close to a 4* WR or QB. Seriously, what is Iowa's chances if they end up with 3* as the high bar recruits and they are a developmental team that takes times for most positions. Wouldn't be good.

Also, can you tell me the last time any of the Army, Air Force or Naval Academies made a dent in the BCS or college football playoffs.? There is a reason for that.

 

[JoeyLabasForPresident]

Dude, as much as I would luv to see it, it just ain't gunna happen. You are thinking too simplistically. Even top WR's and TE's don't want to play in a system that doesn't resemble what is ran in the NFL. Why would a player commit the most important 4-5 years of their lives take the chance to develop with a team using a system so different from the league?

I don't know, ask Darren Waller, DeAndre Smelter, Stephen Hill, and Demaryius Thomas why they chose Georgia Tech instead of coming to Iowa where they would surely have had more productive careers and been better prepared for the NFL. Is that a long list of NFL WRs that played under Paul Johnson? No, but it absolutely puts to shame what Kirk Ferentz has put in the league at the position, and Paul Johnson was only at GT for ten years. Why don't you apply this logic to all the dudes who go to all of the P5 programs that don't run pro style offenses? Plenty of incredible players play in offenses that aren't popular in the league.

You mention the TE's, but again, you are only focusing on the routes and receiving. Any TE that might have a chance in the NFL is not gunna want to take a chance learning the blocking schemes for a wishbone offense.

In addition, you would throw out any chance, slim as it might be, to even remotely get anything close to a 4* WR or QB. Seriously, what is Iowa's chances if they end up with 3* as the high bar recruits and they are a developmental team that takes times for most positions. Wouldn't be good.

Don't care. Anything lost in QB/WR recruiting is gained in actually having a passable offense. Recruiting isn't the issue on offense. Scheme and coaching is.

Also, can you tell me the last time any of the Army, Air Force or Naval Academies made a dent in the BCS or college football playoffs.? There is a reason for that.

There's a reason I mentioned GT. The reason those teams can't make it to the playoffs isn't offensive scheme, it's because attending comes with a four year service commitment, not to mention that two of them don't play in 5 conferences.

 

[InGoodCo]

Feel like he's gonna play based on todays insta

 

[MelroseHawkins]

I don't know, ask Darren Waller, DeAndre Smelter, Stephen Hill, and Demaryius Thomas why they chose Georgia Tech instead of coming to Iowa where they would surely have had more productive careers and been better prepared for the NFL. Is that a long list of NFL WRs that played under Paul Johnson? No, but it absolutely puts to shame what Kirk Ferentz has put in the league at the position, and Paul Johnson was only at GT for ten years. Why don't you apply this logic to all the dudes who go to all of the P5 programs that don't run pro style offenses? Plenty of incredible players play in offenses that aren't popular in the league.

Don't care. Anything lost in QB/WR recruiting is gained in actually having a passable offense. Recruiting isn't the issue on offense. Scheme and coaching is.

There's a reason I mentioned GT. The reason those teams can't make it to the playoffs isn't offensive scheme, it's because attending comes with a four year service commitment, not to mention that two of them don't play in 5 conferences.

All those guys above played in a wishbone offense?

 

[JoeyLabasForPresident]

All those guys above played in a wishbone offense?

Mostly flexbone, derivative of the wishbone.

LAST STAND of the Triple Option

Explore the career of former Georgia Tech Head Football Coach, Paul Johnson, and his use of the Flexbone, Triple Option offense at the highest level of compe...

www.youtube.com