Notebook: Brian Ferentz Self-Evaluates, Parker Points at Secondary
- Thread starter RobHowe
- Start date
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
If we can start spelling accountability F-E-R-E-N-T-Z, then I'm all for it. That is precisely the type of honesty that we want to hear. Sounded a bit like Fran and that is refreshing. Yes, he said execution...but, as we all know "execution" has been used in the pass to describe bad plays that didn't work, as well as, good plays that didn't work. Brian separated those from each other and defined execution as what it should be. I'm encouraged.
Fryowa
Administrator
I’m a Parker fan, but when he’s comparing statistical averages with our past teams and saying we’re “right on the mark,” that doesn’t sound to me like someone who’s aiming high, especially when we’ve lost two B1G games and almost got beat by ISU already this year.
Also, hearing him talk about how we don’t blitz much and how
its a “feel” thing is disconcerting, especially when it seems like it works so well when we do it. I think the payoff from blitzing more frequently outweighs the risk of leaving the secondary thin. But I’m not a P5 coach nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
Last edited:
IndianaHawk
Well-Known Member
Teams have been picking up our blitzes lately. So it's tough, do you gamble or bend but not break. To steal their term.
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
BF being frank and accountable is refreshing. He at least seems to understand where the weaknesses are. It is disappointing to hear that Butler's return will be pushed back, but I've been impressed with the young RBs.
Parker saying that he is pleased with the pass rush made me laugh out loud. Apparently, he expects to see improvement in pass coverage with the opposing QB going through his progressions like he's sitting in a lazy boy. It's also disconcerting that he is so caught up in the statistical percentages, implying that he's missing obvious deficiencies on the field. The (selective) statistics don't always tell the true story, Rastetter's punting results being a prime example.
Parker saying that he is pleased with the pass rush made me laugh out loud. Apparently, he expects to see improvement in pass coverage with the opposing QB going through his progressions like he's sitting in a lazy boy. It's also disconcerting that he is so caught up in the statistical percentages, implying that he's missing obvious deficiencies on the field. The (selective) statistics don't always tell the true story, Rastetter's punting results being a prime example.
I didn't realize Iowa has/had a pass rush. Does he watch the same game the rest of us are watching?
Good for BF taking accountability for the offensive game plan against MSU.
I've noticed that also. In fact, opposing offenses have been picking up our blitzes the past 12-14 games. I'd also rather see Bower or Niemann blitz and let Josie roam the middle and pick up any routes over the middle and also the QB if he leaves the pocket.
The only thing that he stated is around the mark is points per game which is at 18.7 i believe. That is pretty dam good mark. This was also preceded by him listing a ton of things that needed to improve. I am not to worried about him not aiming high enough.
Fryowa
Administrator
You must not have read the whole article.
Like I said before I’m a fan of Phil Parker and in no way am I saying he’s doing a bad job, but the vibe I get from the above statement is that “good enough is good enough,” and to me we should be shooting higher than that. Maybe I’m reading him wrong, I just don’t think that in a sport like football, being satisfied with hitting your goals if you’re not winning conference games is backwards.
I did. And he isn't happy with all of the stats because they aren't making all of their goals.
As an example. He also starts the statistics off with the most important one being W and Ls and how he is disappointed in that. Which I guess you can just take as coach speak but really you could claim that about most coaches. Perhaps we just disagree on this one.
