NCHawker
Well-Known Member
too long. is there a question in there?
Ok....truth serum time
- Thread starter Playmaker
- Start date
too long. is there a question in there?
FriendlyGopher
Active Member
I hear there's a great recruiter down at Flordia State 
judzee - I guess that I'm having a hard time understanding your question....but I'll try again. If we had beaten Sparty, I still wouldn't have thought we beat a Top 8 team....especially after seeing them give up 39 to Nebraska. And that comparison versus what we scored against MSU didn't make me feel too good about us...win or lose. The game today did nothing more than solidify what I was 99% sure of anyway....that KF should not have been coaching this year, given his lazy and convoluted recruiting theories....not to mention poor game day management, and zero ability to make in-game adjustments.
GotTimDodge
Well-Known Member
The truth kinda hurts tonight.
Magical season magical shmeason...
we showed we don't belong on the Big Stage.
And even if we go undefeated next year,
this game will be mentioned.
So the truth?
We may be really good, but we're a long ways from being great.
Magical season magical shmeason...
we showed we don't belong on the Big Stage.
And even if we go undefeated next year,
this game will be mentioned.
So the truth?
We may be really good, but we're a long ways from being great.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
LOL....so a team that beat Oregon, OSU, Michigan and Iowa WASNT a good team because they got beat by BAMA.....LOLOL, is there another team that can say they beat 4 top 20 teams? Going 4-1 vs top 20 teams is pretty damned impressive, and I'd bet even Bama couldn't do better than that (because they didn't, they lost to Ole Miss).
ClintonIAfan
Well-Known Member
Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall!
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
Iowa lost horribly to Stanford. Sparty lost horribly to Alabama. Here's the difference, IMO: Sparty lost because of lack of talent in the secondary or injuries. Overall, Iowa lost because of schemes and football philosophy. So when Sparty has the athletes in the secondary who aren't injured (and gets a QB the caliber of Cook), they will again become great(although it would've shown coaching ability to change this into a positive with a different pass defense). Iowa can get all the great athletes they want. Iowa won't use these athletes' abilities. KF led schemes will forever kill Iowa.
Last edited:
trj
Well-Known Member
4 straight bowl losses 3 haven't really been close......even the LSU game LSU felt like they were control throughout.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
At least the 2002 game against USC, Iowa actually showed up for that one. I think a lot of people forget that game was tied at halftime, and Iowa actually left a lot of points on the field in the first half. USC just dominated the 2nd and our D was gassed. But, I get your point...
If Iowa had gone 13-1 and gotten stomped by Alabama, it would have been the same feel for me as 12-2 and stomped by Stanford: Just a feeling that the season was mainly smoke & mirrors against an easy schedule, and we were exposed against better teams. Doesn't change that it was still a fun season, though. Just wish yesterday would have seen Iowa put forth a better effort and make it a game.
HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I should also say we were more competitive against USC.....but the same problems of a lack of speed, game planning, and a lack of 5 star athletes was apparent. But, 2002 had more talent than 2015. Really hurts, but in the end the talking heads were right......Iowa's schedule protected them. 12-0 does not happen if Iowa had to play OSU, MSU, maybe even Michigan (although I think Iowa probably could still take Michigan.....I should say if they played earlier in the season, not so sure now) during the regular season.
Eventually the turd happened......it just took to the end of season for it to drop out. At the end of the day, lack of athletes, lack of play calling, going back to being ole conservative Kirk doomed Iowa. I also think Iowa was not healthy at the end of the year (lack of depth) even with the month off.
I will give them credit for winning at Wisconsin and at Northwestern as those were both 10 win teams. And winning 12 in a row against meh and pretty good competition proves you are at least better than avearge and probably also proves you are a good team. But, Iowa is not a great team and continues to prove when it really matters on a big stage against a big time opponent, they can't hang with them. And, to say, well we hung with MSU......I think MSU proved they are not elite this year either. They are just a little better than Iowa and probably beat Iowa 5-6 times out of 10 this year.
Slowly, but surely, the wheels were coming off down the home stretch. Just really examine our running yards per game the last 4 or 5 games. We picked up a lot of our yards on several big touchdown runs. A lot of 1-3 yard gains in between. We were doing just enough to get by or our opponent was doing just enough to let us win.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
There is no new Kirk, never was. This season is representative of the "hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard" approach.
This team and the coaches were driven after last year's sad display and the growing disgust among the fans. They worked their butts off and were as focused a "team" as we've seen in years. Great leadership from the players. Combine that with a relatively weak schedule..(yes it's true)...and much improved quarterback play and we saw a surprising 12-0 run. Can't take that away from the Hawks. They earned it
Unfortunately the "hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard" approach only takes you so far. When other teams have better talent, it's tough to overcome. And a well-coached team with talent can easily stifle a vanilla game plan...both offensively and defensively. When the other team is more the aggressor, it usually goes bad.
Good, occasionally really good...but never Great...with the KFz formula.
This team and the coaches were driven after last year's sad display and the growing disgust among the fans. They worked their butts off and were as focused a "team" as we've seen in years. Great leadership from the players. Combine that with a relatively weak schedule..(yes it's true)...and much improved quarterback play and we saw a surprising 12-0 run. Can't take that away from the Hawks. They earned it
Unfortunately the "hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard" approach only takes you so far. When other teams have better talent, it's tough to overcome. And a well-coached team with talent can easily stifle a vanilla game plan...both offensively and defensively. When the other team is more the aggressor, it usually goes bad.
Good, occasionally really good...but never Great...with the KFz formula.
Last edited:
mrolympia
Well-Known Member
if this game would have been close, he could have retired. Now there's no way that can happen. Regardless Iowa needs a better skill position recruiter. Big play WRs have been lacking in the ferentz era. When's the last guy who was a threat to take it to the house every time he touched the ball in the KF era playing wr?
when down as much as Iowa was yesterday, why not put desmond king on offense a few times? what do you got to lose?
when down as much as Iowa was yesterday, why not put desmond king on offense a few times? what do you got to lose?
Undefeated
Well-Known Member
Well stated.
Teams with good athlete offensively gave us some fits all year. Indiana, Minnesota. We never shutdown a good running team. Wisconsin didn't have Clement when we played them.
We were not the physically dominating defense of the 02-04 era this year. We caught the breaks and had an extremely favorable schedule.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Agree with you that there was never a new Kirk, and I said as much during the season.
As as far as no KF teams being great, I disagree, but I do understand that it would just depend on how you define great. If you don't think a KF team has been great, then you must feel that way about Fry's teams as well, and I would disagree with that too.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
I think 2002 Kirk and 1985 Hayden were both great teams.
TychoBrahe
Well-Known Member
I have seen five elite Iowa teams in my lifetime: 1985, 2002, and 2009 were all top five teams that had varying fates in their bowls, but any of them could have gotten to the NCAA final in a 4-team playoff system given their talent. The other two were 1984 and 2008 which were elite teams at the end of their seasons, but prior to that point had problems with injuries or experience/other variables. But don't a lot of use think the end-of-year 2008 team could have/would have beaten the 2009 team? I think maybe so.
This year, KF and Co. did a great job putting a team together, but admittedly we won all our close games and that's the difference between 2015 and, say, 2010, or 2009 when we also won all our close games until Ricky Stanzi got hurt. We operate on a thin margin, always, between going 6-6 and 12-0.
However, we do need to make a change at OC. Watching Stanford's offense, not set up much different than our own, was an eye-opener. I don't know what we're afraid of, but never in a million-jillion years would we run a fake-fumble play like they did, in a Rose Bowl. We don't consistently put our talent into space like they do with McCaffrey, on swing passes and those little slants across the middle. We don't mix things up well, with counters and runs from the shotgun and play-action passes. I saw about six different plays from Stanford in about seven offensive plays at the start of that game, whereas we just get so stuck in off-tackle/stretch play/pass play mode with entirely predictable personnel on the field.
I'm no football genius by any means, but when an ignoramus like me is making in-game comments about our offense, and then I see a bona fide FB genius like HawkeyeGamefilm making the same comments in his twitter feed, that's saying more about our offensive play-calling and scheming than it is about my FB knowledge, since I don't know hardly anything. But I do know how to tell the forest from the trees, which our OC seemingly does not much of the time.
I am ready for someone like BF to take over the offense, since I see him champing at the bit to mix things up a la Stanford's offensive philosophy. I'd like to see what he could do for a few years, starting in 2016.
trj
Well-Known Member
I agree with you and Dean there was never a "New Kirk". It is not much different than 2008 when King and Kroul among others took the leadership reign and refocused the program. They passed that on to Angerer, Edds and a few others. Hopefully, you will see Lomax, Canzeri pass it on to Jewell and other potential leaders of the team.
knighthawk13
Well-Known Member
This game showed that KF is still light years behind when it comes to offensive schemes. Running Canzeri the way they did was never going to work.
